manual focus for distant objects

[denada]

when i am focusing the nikkor af 35 - 80mm lens at something more than 15ft away (how far the markings on the lens go before the infinite symbol) it seems to me that, through the viewfinder, the object is just slightly better in focus if i don't turn the focus ring quite as far as it in the direction of the infinite symbol. even though the object is way past 15ft. and i mean just a fraction less on a millimeter less than the focus ring will turn before maxing out.

is this just because my vision isn't quite perfect and even though it looks better in focus to me it's really out of focus? or am i doing it right and all the way clockwise of the focus right is for off into the horizon, not 35 feet away? or am i just imagining things, because it's such a slight difference?

the camera is a n2000, so i can't check myself with an autofocus feature.

 

[Derrel]

You have hit upon one of **the biggest** problems in focusing by hand and eye, with many modern lenses. Beyond about 6 feet, many AF lenses have hair-trigger focusing ring movement, where one millimeter's worth of movement of the ring can move the focus20,30,40,50,or even 100 feet. Many autofocusing lenses have this issue, a very hair-trigger focusing arrangement at any distance beyond close range.

I am not familiar with that, specific AF-Nikkor lens. But you do have to really, really ride the focusing, to use the old expression, on a good number of AF lenses. Some prime lenses have this same issue, like the 60mm AF-D Micro~Nikkor...beyond about 4 feet or so, that thing is a bear to focus...it has a success rate of maybe 75 percent in fast-moving situations.

 

[denada]

alright, so i am reading you correct that it is extremely sensitive toward the end of the focus ring and i should not just turn it all the way because that is for objects much further than 35 ft. and objects at 35 can be just a hair counter-clockwise from the max?

 

[Derrel]

Some lenses have what is called a hard infinity stop, where turned all the way to maximum distance, the lens is focused at Infinity, so if yoyu say go out at night and focus on the stars, and turn the focusing ring alllll the way to the stop, it's at Infinity.

Other lenses focus beyond Infinity, as it is called (I know, right!) Pretty much all Nikon ED-glass lenses focus beyond infinity

Looking at these 34 reviews of the 35-80, it gets dreadful remarks and is known to be very difficult to focus manually, for a couple reasons.Nikon AF 35-80mm f/4-5.6D Reviews - PhotographyREVIEW.com

 

[beachrat]

To infinity and beyond?
Awesome.

Derrel always has some pretty cool info.

 

[calamityjane]

Have you tried adjusting the diopter setting so it matches your eyesight?

 

[denada]

Have you tried adjusting the diopter setting so it matches your eyesight?

don't see one on the nikon n2000.

 

[wfooshee]

Derrel has it right with this. AF lenses can be extremely difficult to focus manually, especially on the fly, mostly due to the limited range of motion the focusing ring goes through. The focus ring on my MF 85mm f:1.8 turns through about 120 degrees. The ring on my AF 18-55 kit lens turns maybe 15 degrees. On the front where it says, "AF-S DX NIKKOR," it doesn't even turn through the space those letters take up! It's simply not possible to manually make fine focus adjustments with that.

And most AF lenses will focus past infinity. Logically you sit there and think, "But what's farther out than infinity?" Well, the issue is not so much that it can see farther, but that mechanically, "focused on infinity" should be the closest the lens moves towards the film plane. Most AF lenses can move past that point, probably just an allowance for manufacturing tolerances.

 

[soufiej]

when i am focusing the nikkor af 35 - 80mm lens at something more than 15ft away (how far the markings on the lens go before the infinite symbol) it seems to me that, through the viewfinder, the object is just slightly better in focus if i don't turn the focus ring quite as far as it in the direction of the infinite symbol. even though the object is way past 15ft. and i mean just a fraction less on a millimeter less than the focus ring will turn before maxing out.

is this just because my vision isn't quite perfect and even though it looks better in focus to me it's really out of focus? or am i doing it right and all the way clockwise of the focus right is for off into the horizon, not 35 feet away? or am i just imagining things, because it's such a slight difference?

the camera is a n2000, so i can't check myself with an autofocus feature.

Learn your equipment. Nothing against Derrel's information but knowing your lens has a "hair trigger" is not exactly "knowing your equipment".



I will assume you comprehend depth of field, have a flexible DOF calculator available and you understand your lens will be sharper all around at its mid-aperture settings.

If you carry a smartphone, this is available as an app; A Flexible Depth of Field Calculator Simply substitute "film plane" for "sensor".


You are at a bit of a disadvantage with a film camera since it will cost you some money to perform the tests I'm about to suggest. However, attach your camera to a tripod and pick your subject for an "infinity" shot. It's best to use a remote trigger for this test if you have any sense your shutter technique might lead to some blur despite the camera being locked on a tripod. If you lack a trigger, just make sure you are not jabbing at the shutter release. Depress the release gently and hold it until you hear the camera complete its cycle.

Knowing the actual single plane of perfect focus is extremely thin, you are looking for the setting which provides the greatest amount of acceptable sharpness both in front of and behind that plane. That is a basic description of the "hyperfocal distance" you will typically operate from; Understanding Your Camera’s Hyperfocal Distance



Once you grasp the idea of hyperfocal distance, adjust your camera's settings to achieve equivalent exposure as you manipulate the aperture control. Take a series of test shots which you feel will inform your work when selecting both aperture and focus adjustments. In other words, make small, slow and incremental adjustments to the lens to indicate where your lens achieves its greatest sharpness over the greatest distance.

Take along a small journal to track your settings against shot number. You will need this information to make sense of the test results.

As I read your op, I feel you are mistaking exactly what you see through the viewfinder to be what is happening at the film plane. IMO, that's not exactly how your camera is operating. Certainly not with a vintage camera at least. You are also assuming the infinity markings on the lens are perfect which they probably are not. As noted, tolerances for vintage lenses allows a certain fudge factor in your adjustments. Wear and tear over time adds to that allowable "rightness".

Develop your shots to the largest print size you can afford and then exam your results using a magnifying glass or even a loupe if you are hyper-critical of your work.

You need to be concerned with your results on film and when they are printed, not what you see in the viewfinder.

I would say don't allow the distortions of your lens to color your perception of the results but know they are there and certain settings will make them more evident.

 

[Derrel]

alright, so i am reading you correct that it is extremely sensitive toward the end of the focus ring and i should not just turn it all the way because that is for objects much further than 35 ft. and objects at 35 can be just a hair counter-clockwise from the max?

You have discovered just how poor the manual focusing action is on the economical 35-80mm Nikon lens. Reading the review of the 34 owners who rated the lens, many of them mentioned how difficult it is to focus manually. The focusing ring's full arc of travel is not very large, and toward the longer distances, the focusing ring moves the focus from 15 feet to 35 feet to Infinity in an excruciatingly short amount of turn of the ring. It is a lens that was designed to be focused by a machine, being run by a microcomputer. As if that is not bad enough, a fair number of AF lenses have very light-touch mechanisms, and are "loosey-goosey", not precise and not silky-smooth and solid. Getting another lens might be the absolute best course of action.

 

[astroNikon]

Does your N2000 not have a focusing screen to aid in focusing ? (excluding the above mentioned lens focusing issues)

 

[denada]

alright, appreciate all the replies and learned a good deal. also ended up taking the camera back for a nikon fg with a nikon series e 50mm f/1.8.

As I read your op, I feel you are mistaking exactly what you see through the viewfinder to be what is happening at the film plane. IMO, that's not exactly how your camera is operating. Certainly not with a vintage camera at least.

bummer. what you describe sounds like a bit of work.

 

[Ihatemymoney]

Some lenses are designed for extremely auto focusing, thus making the manual focusing mode not user friendly.

 

[Solarflare]

I think thats mostly a cost issue.

For example the Leica Q probably (I couldnt handle one yet) has very good manual focus.

 

[GHK]

when i am focusing the nikkor af 35 - 80mm lens at something more than 15ft away (how far the markings on the lens go before the infinite symbol) it seems to me that, through the viewfinder, the object is just slightly better in focus if i don't turn the focus ring quite as far as it in the direction of the infinite symbol. even though the object is way past 15ft. and i mean just a fraction less on a millimeter less than the focus ring will turn before maxing out.

is this just because my vision isn't quite perfect and even though it looks better in focus to me it's really out of focus? or am i doing it right and all the way clockwise of the focus right is for off into the horizon, not 35 feet away? or am i just imagining things, because it's such a slight difference?

the camera is a n2000, so i can't check myself with an autofocus feature.

There's nothing wrong with you or what you are doing. What you have noticed is precisely what should be observed; focus is finer at short distances, but much coarser further away. This is simply a consequence of the way all lenses behave. Just carry on.
GHK